PRIA, Government Policy, Made Personal

Summary

Federal district courts must hear certain disputes about interstate river pollution and how interstate compacts are used. The case must involve an interstate compact that at least partly deals with pollution of an interstate river system, and the compact must say the signatory States agree to be sued in district court over its meaning or use. The case must claim pollution that breaks the compact, have one or more signatory States as the plaintiff, and fit within the federal courts’ powers. These cases can be filed regardless of the amount of money at stake or where people live. A State may not use this to sue its own citizens. The courts can hear suits between States that signed the compact, but not against States that did not sign. The case can be filed in any district where the pollution acts happened.

Title 33, §466g–1

Navigation and Navigable Waters, Source: USLM XML via OLRC

(a)The United States district courts shall have original jurisdiction (concurrent with that of the Supreme Court of the United States, and concurrent with that of any other court of the United States or of any State of the United States in matters in which the Supreme Court, or any other court, has original jurisdiction) of any case or controversy—

(1)which involves the construction or application of an interstate compact which (A) in whole or in part relates to the pollution of the waters of an interstate river system or any portion thereof, and (B) expresses the consent of the States signatory to said compact to be sued in a district court in any case or controversy involving the application or construction thereof; and

(2)which involves pollution of the waters of such river system, or any portion thereof, alleged to be in violation of the provisions of said compact; and

(3)in which one or more of the States signatory to said compact is a plaintiff or plaintiffs; and

(4)which is within the judicial power of the United States as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

(b)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of a case or controversy such as is referred to in subsection (a) of this section, without any requirement, limitation, or regard as to the sum or value of the matter in controversy, or of the place of residence or situs or citizenship, or of the nature, character, or legal status, of any of the proper parties plaintiff or defendant in said case or controversy other than the signatory State or States plaintiff or plaintiffs referred to in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this section: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing a State to sue its own citizens in said courts.

(c)The original jurisdiction conferred upon the district courts by this section shall include, but not be limited to, suits between States signatory to such interstate compact: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing a State to sue another State which is not a signatory to such compact in said courts.

(d)The venue of such case or controversy shall be as prescribed by law: Provided, That in addition thereto, such case or controversy may be brought in in any judicial district in which the acts of pollution complained of, or any portion thereof, occur, regardless of the place or places of residence, or situs, of any of the parties plaintiff or defendant.

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Separability Pub. L. 87–830, § 2, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 957, provided that: “If any part or application of this Act [this section] should be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, said invalidity shall not affect the other parts, or the other applications, of said Act.”

§466g–1 Controversies Involving Construction or Application of Interstate Compacts and Pollution of Waters

Summary

Title 33, §466g–1

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Citations & Metadata